Geoff Petrie

[Bricklayer]

I don't agree with this. It was a gutsy move -- Vlade was entering his 30s and Petrie threw a lot of money at him. It worked out really well, but it equally could have been a bust. It wasn't some kind of no-brainer, nor was drafting a troubled young PG who set the tone. Trading for a then-troubled PF who had worn out his welcome in two cities also wasn't the no-brainer it seems today. He deserves credit for these things. It doesn't buy him an eternity of teflon, but these still were some seriously great moves.

Whatever else it was, I would hardly call it gutsy (trading Mitch for Webb was clsoer to that given fan sentiment) move -- we had cap room, a hole at center, and virtually nobody else would come in 1999. It was an obvious move.

As for JWill, I have long supported that move as being significant for the franchise. Did so on draft day when I called my brohter and told him the kid was fun. Nonetheless, when you pass up Dirk Nowitzki and Paul Pierce to draft Jason Williams there is some considerable question whether that goes in the ole career highlight reel.

 

[kingsfan101]

The talent evaluation has a lot of merit to it. Geoff has picked far too many players off the dust heap and late in the draft to be a coincidence. Sure, not perfect, but he's been at the top of the league at finding more with less for a very long time. I disagree with Brick that it's just limited to smalls -- he's still the guy who found Pollard, saw the wisdom in investing in Divac and Miller, etc.

I don't think the problem is with the talent evaluation. The problem is with the vision. There was an opportunity with the Webber trade to clear the decks, he took a pass. There was an opportunity to either spend on some youth or just not spend any money at all this past offseason -- he went with Mikki Moore.

And we'll see what happens at the trading deadline.

I used to be a die-hard Petrie supporter, but the Mikki Moore signing and Spencer Hawes drafting... I mean, yikes and yikes. But then he goes and signs Beno, Dahntay Jones looks like a solid end of bencher and John Salmons starts playing like a freaking All-Star. You can't count the man out, but there's a long road to climb.

Excellent points, and yes, for me too, the main problem is with the vision.

Couple of other points, which have adversely impacted the organization, though I don't know where the blame lies.

1. We lost several players over the last few years for no compensation; GW to Cats, Darius to Wizards, Monia to Russia, and Reef to injury. This does not even account for players who were FAs, and we let go (e.g. Mobley), or someone like Price, who wanted to leave. Wonder if in each of the above case, things could have been different
(a) Reef was an injury question mark after Nets declined him.
(b) Monia probably wanted to leave, but wonder if Geoff had an idea when we traded for him, or did this develop when he was with the team and felt he wouldn't get a chance. Don't know if he would have been any good, but always sad to lose a young talent.
(c) Darius is probably the least controversial, since we let him become a FA.
(d) GW is obviously the most controversial, and the biggest loss. Brick is convinced that it was monumental stupidity by the front office to expose him for the expansion draft. I believe it was another Price like situation, where the player wanted to leave, and we honored that.

In any case, considering what GW has become since leaving us, Petrie should have worked him while he was still here, assuring him that he shall be a central piece of our future. Someone so good should not be allowed to get into the state where he wants to move.

2. Size of contracts he hands out
Lot of us have criticized the long and expensive contracts he has given out in recent years (Reef, Salmons, even Miki, though his length is slightly small). While John is certainly earning his dough, we shall always wonder, if he could have gotten these players cheaper.

In the same tone, he earlier signed players like Bibby and Brad to long expensive contracts. Big extension to Martin is another example. Hopefully Martin's progress shall make it look like a bargain. One does wonder though, if any of these contracts could have been cheaper/smaller.

 

[nbrans]

Not one of those traits bespeaks vision or planning or outside awareness. They are reactive. Patching and attempting to get lucky. Hopefully that guy we like will fall to us wherever we are drafting (which is just wherever we are drafting because we make no efforts to control that). Hopefully somebody will fall out of favor and hit the market.

Yup. That's the rub. I'd even extend the scrap heap opportunities all the way back to Webber, Jason Williams, Vernon Maxwell... the man makes "one man's trash/another man's treasure" a religion.

Unfortunately, the last superstar in the entire NBA to have been plucked off of a scrap heap was Chris Webber. And that was 10 years ago. We're still waiting for the next one.

The thing about Petrie is that he would have been absolutely brilliant in RC Buford's shoes. With Duncan as a centerpiece superstar Petrie could have spent the last 10 years filling in around the edges with all sorts of late draft picks and back-from-the-dead perfect players who would have kept the title machine running.

The problem with Petrie is that he's unwilling to put the team in a position to get a superstar now that we don't have one anymore. Kevin Martin is nice, who knows how good he'll get, but we're going to need more. Assorted diamonds in the rough aren't going to get us back to 2002.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You can easily make an argument for Petrie being in the top 5 in talent evaluation. Like I said, say what you want about the direction of the team, how he's not rebuilding the right way, etc etc. But you have to give him props because he's one of the best at finding undervalued talent. Again, top 5 pretty easily.

No, he's not.

Let's not pretend that the draft is the only quantifiable means of demonstrating an eye for talent. Dumars knew Chauncey Billups wasn't washed up. He knew that Hamilton for Stackhouse was going to be a win for him. He knew that he was getting the better of the Ben Wallace for Grant Hill deal. This guy has a great track record for acquiring talent and, most importantly (as I stated earlier), has not only gotten his team to the Promised Land, but started to build them up around the same time that Petrie made the Kings relevant, and has put them in the position to continue to be relevant while Petrie sits and rests on his laurels. Advantage: Dumars.

Regarding your perspective on RC Buford's performance, and all the stuff about the draft is correct. But, as I said before, the draft is not the sole measure of whether or not a GM has an eye for talent. The fact of the matter is that San Antonio has won three championships since he's been in charge, and Tim Duncan didn't do it by himself... And, to add to that, look at how fast Miami's fallen apart. Look at the implosion in Los Angeles after 2002. The fact that Buford has been able to keep a winning team around Tim Duncan is as much as sign of a great GM as it is to build one from scratch. Advantage: Buford.

Pritchard, Bower and Colangelo haven't been working as GM's for as long as Petrie has, but as I've stated dozens of times before, I refuse to give Petrie an unlimited free pass for what he did once, five years ago. Compare the time periods that Pritchard, Bower and Colangelo have been GM's to Petrie's performance in that same span of time, and they all come out ahead.

You want to say Petrie's doing a good job, I certainly don't agree with that, but you're entitled to your opinion. You want to say he's above average? Fine. You want to say he's "elite?" That he's "top tier?" That he's The Man? No. Not only no, but hell no.

 

[fnordius]

No, he's not.

The "proof of the pudding" approach is a good way to avoid getting too wrapped up in details.

He took a weak team, turned it into a great one, then let it turn back into a pretty weak one. It's probably stronger than the late Mitch-era team, but it's also in a very poor position for a rebuild. In the short term (next 2 years) it could hardly be in a worse rebuilding position. So the net gain is slight, if it exists at all.

And that pretty much sums it up. A+ on the midterm, but only a C on the final. A miracle at the trade deadline could markedly improve his GPA, but there's no reason to assume that's inevitably going to happen.

 

[VF21]

But if, in a couple of years, the team is a great one again, then could it be argued this bad spot was a necessary part of the process?

 

[Warhawk]

But if, in a couple of years, the team is a great one again, then could it be argued this bad spot was a necessary part of the process?

If not necessary, possibly just an understandable one? Some teams seem to be able to make changes and keep rolling. Some do not. Those that do seem to have a healthy star (Duncan, etc). We lost ours....

It's really hard for me to bash GP too much because we don't know the calls he's making and offers he receives. Maybe he's made some blunders. Maybe he's actually taken the best trade avaialble each time. I really don't know....but assume it's some of each.

I know it's easy to throw out what he should do, but it always takes 2 to tango. Is he the brilliant genius or lucky blunderer? Again, maybe some of each? This would all be so much easier if we had all the information before us and could judge on facts and not speculation, especially on trades made or not made.

 

[kingsfan101]

But if, in a couple of years, the team is a great one again, then could it be argued this bad spot was a necessary part of the process?

Hopefully yes, and yes, bad spot was a necessary part of the process, particularly after the injury to Webber.

Problem is we prolonged the bad part to much more than was required, in an effort to stay competitive. Had we decided to rebuild when it was clear that we are no longer contending for the big prize, we might have been great already.

 

[kingsfan101]

I know it's easy to throw out what he should do, but it always takes 2 to tango. Is he the brilliant genius or lucky blunderer? Again, maybe some of each? This would all be so much easier if we had all the information before us and could judge on facts and not speculation, especially on trades made or not made.

That's a very valid point. This still does not alter the fact that we kept doling out MLE contracts when we should have been trying to dump salary instead. By all accounts, Geoff has been trying to dump salary, but has not been successful so far. It still doesn't explain the MLE contracts that don't do us any good, and deny playing time to the kids.

 

[VF21]

Problem is we prolonged the bad part to much more than was required, in an effort to stay competitive. Had we decided to rebuild when it was clear that we are no longer contending for the big prize, we might have been great already.

While definitely a point you can argue, I don't think you can really prove this one way or the other...for one main and indisputable reason: INJURIES. Hindsight is always 20-20 but I think people are trying to judge Petrie as though he's at the end of his career. If this were his last year, I would be more inclined to agree with a lot of the conclusions. But this isn't his last year - the Kings are very much a work in progress and, much like trying to rate the taste of a cake based on the batter, I think it's just too early to talk about what should and shouldn't have been done...

Just my three cents.

 

[VF21]

That's a very valid point. This still does not alter the fact that we kept doling out MLE contracts when we should have been trying to dump salary instead. By all accounts, Geoff has been trying to dump salary, but has not been successful so far. It still doesn't explain the MLE contracts that don't do us any good, and deny playing time to the kids.

This "deny playing time to the kids" argument is specious at best. The kids have been seeing pretty good PT for the most part. I would rather see Hawes, for example, develop slowly than be thrown to the lions prematurely. As far as Justin Williams goes, I think he's seeing the minutes he deserves. He's still ... boy, there's just no nice way to say this ... about as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to court awareness and basketball IQ.

 

[treewoman]

But if, in a couple of years, the team is a great one again, then could it be argued this bad spot was a necessary part of the process?

I agree with this whole heartedly. The team is in re-build mode and I think he is doing a pretty good job of it. The man in not psychic and a lot of the criticism I see is based on the benefits of hindsight.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

You want to say Petrie's doing a good job,

That's the rub isn't it? I never said he was doing a brilliant job. The direction of the team is questionable. He may not be rebuilding the right way. But when you look at simply this one aspect of being an NBA GM, the skill of evaluating a talent and his fit into a team, then Petrie's top 5 easily. And his track record speaks for itself; even in the past few years, Petrie has seen the talent in guys like Gerald Wallace, Gilbert Arenas, Kevin Martin, Francisco Garcia, John Salmons, Beno Udrih among many others I'm not remembering right now. Easily Top 5 in this category.

Where I'd question Petrie is can he build this team again from scratch? Or will he? Who does he target and how do they fit in for the future?

 

[Warhawk]

That's a very valid point. This still does not alter the fact that we kept doling out MLE contracts when we should have been trying to dump salary instead. By all accounts, Geoff has been trying to dump salary, but has not been successful so far. It still doesn't explain the MLE contracts that don't do us any good, and deny playing time to the kids.

Agreed. Although the Salmons signing looks a lot better than it did last year and who knows, maybe Moore will look better later as well. Doubt it ever will, but he has been somewhat helpful in stretches.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

But when you look at simply this one aspect of being an NBA GM, the skill of evaluating a talent and his fit into a team, then Petrie's top 5 easily.

No. He. Is. Not.

1) The draft is not the sole qualifier of whether or not a GM is a good evaluator of talent, as has already been detailed.

2) Dumars, Buford, Pritchard, Bower and Colangelo are all better at evaluating talent. For that matter, despite the fact that they're struggling right now, you could make the case that John Paxon has been better, too. And that's neither here nor there to me, because Petrie may be better than Paxon, but he's not better than the five guys I've already named, and there's no way in the world that he's "easily" top 5.

 

[fnordius]

But if, in a couple of years, the team is a great one again, then could it be argued this bad spot was a necessary part of the process?

Two years from now, all we can be sure of is that Bibby and Artest will be gone. KT, SAR, and Mikki will still be under contract, unless we manage to avert that by trading a good player plus one of them for a bag of chips. I'm sure that the topic will be revived if the Kings are great again in 2 years, but I will be (very pleasantly) surprised if that is the case.

But if it were, I'm sure that some would argue that this bad spot was necessary. I would only be reluctant to accept such an explanation because I don't think it really takes 7 years to do a rebuild -- there are no contracts that long, so one should be able to turn over every position once or twice in that long of a period, even if one cannot manage a single trade.

 

[kupman]

If not necessary, possibly just an understandable one? Some teams seem to be able to make changes and keep rolling. Some do not. Those that do seem to have a healthy star (Duncan, etc). We lost ours....

It's really hard for me to bash GP too much because we don't know the calls he's making and offers he receives. Maybe he's made some blunders. Maybe he's actually taken the best trade avaialble each time. I really don't know....but assume it's some of each.

I know it's easy to throw out what he should do, but it always takes 2 to tango. Is he the brilliant genius or lucky blunderer? Again, maybe some of each? This would all be so much easier if we had all the information before us and could judge on facts and not speculation, especially on trades made or not made.

I will resist a "Warhawk wins the thread" statement because I really hate those. But I am tempted in this case because I agree so much with this post.

 

[nbrans]

No. He. Is. Not.

1) The draft is not the sole qualifier of whether or not a GM is a good evaluator of talent, as has already been detailed.

2) Dumars, Buford, Pritchard, Bower and Colangelo are all better at evaluating talent. For that matter, despite the fact that they're struggling right now, you could make the case that John Paxon has been better, too. And that's neither here nor there to me, because Petrie may be better than Paxon, but he's not better than the five guys I've already named, and there's no way in the world that he's "easily" top 5.

I really don't know how you can make this claim. Dumars? He's done well with veterans, but he's been seriously spotty with draft picks. How many diamond-in-the-rough kind of guys has he found? Billups and Ben Wallace? No doubt, solid. Prince was good. Okur was good. But how hard was it to see that Rip and Rasheed were good? And throw in Darko, the seriously botched Nazr Mohammad acquisition, and losing Ben Wallace for nothing (not so much about talent spotting, but ok) -- I don't see how this constitutes a great track record. They're on the downslide since they won their championship and they need to break it up. Instead he reups Billups and assembles a mediocre bench. I just don't see how he's so much better.

Buford? Case can be made. I'll agree with you there.

Pritchard? What in the heck kind of a track record does he have?? And the guy he drafted just went down with microfracture surgery. Let's talk in five years.

Bower? The guy who looked at Peja and saw a $10 million man? Look, drafting Paul was a complete no-brainer. Hilton Armstrong is a pretty enh lotto pick. Getting Chandler for nothing? Good. Big free agent acquisition Morris Peterson? Say what?

Colangelo? I'll give you this one. Don't feel he's THAT much better than Petrie, but don't feel like arguing.

I mean honestly, it's absolutely ridiculous to put three of these guys ahead of Petrie. Petrie had a team that was THIS close to being a championship team (and would have killed Dumars' best teams), he's pulled all kinds of rabbits out of some crappy hats, and his draft record is up there. The guy knows his talent. As discussed elsewhere, it's the rest of the picture that's problematic.

 

[Vlade4GM]

^^ Agree. We do have a future, and I believe we are one decent PF away from playoff contention, and two years from getting that PF away from title contention. Our situation isn't that bad. We have a decent bench, we have youth, we have vets, and we have a good coach. Petrie has already shown that he is not the type of GM to "tear it down" and rebuild. He is a rebuilder by getting draft picks in the teens, and trades, or signing FAs.

Playoff contention is pretty much a dubious achievement. Mid first draft picks and MLE signings will not a championship contender make.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Yup. That's the rub. I'd even extend the scrap heap opportunities all the way back to Webber, Jason Williams, Vernon Maxwell... the man makes "one man's trash/another man's treasure" a religion.

Unfortunately, the last superstar in the entire NBA to have been plucked off of a scrap heap was Chris Webber. And that was 10 years ago. We're still waiting for the next one.

The thing about Petrie is that he would have been absolutely brilliant in RC Buford's shoes. With Duncan as a centerpiece superstar Petrie could have spent the last 10 years filling in around the edges with all sorts of late draft picks and back-from-the-dead perfect players who would have kept the title machine running.

The problem with Petrie is that he's unwilling to put the team in a position to get a superstar now that we don't have one anymore. Kevin Martin is nice, who knows how good he'll get, but we're going to need more. Assorted diamonds in the rough aren't going to get us back to 2002.

Exactly.

 

[kingsfan101]

Agreed. Although the Salmons signing looks a lot better than it did last year and who knows, maybe Moore will look better later as well. Doubt it ever will, but he has been somewhat helpful in stretches.

Oh certainly. He has made a lot of us look like fools.

Regarding Moore, problem with signing him is not that he is not contributing. In stretches he certainly is. Problem is that we didn't need that at all. It just indicated that we wanted to try for a playoff spot, which again brings back the vision thing.

 

[Kingzrool]

I propose that this whole "lack of vision" thing is less GP and more Maloofs. I keep hearing that GP lacks vision because he has not stripped the team down years ago for a complete rebuild. There are other factors involved here, like selling tickets. It is not GP's team to follow his "vision". I am sure that some owners allow thier GM's to follow what ever vision they see fit. We all know that that is not the Maloofs. Seems pretty clear that they do not like their team losing.

GP has clearly attempted to keep a competetive team on the floor while also attempting some form of rebuild. I really do not think that is his vision, more like his job.

But as Warhawk said, we really do not know unless we can look at actual trades that have been on the table.

 

[Superman]

Wow? Complete disregard for the legitimate title run and the natural cycle of the NBA. Thank you for your insight.

Wow indeed.

How does a legitimate title run five years ago justify the fact that we have less talent than 65% of the NBA, we have no cap space, we have one legitimate youngster, we continue to spend the MLE on marginal players and tread water instead of completely rebuild.... I could go on, easily.

As was mentioned, it doesn't take five years to shed salaries and start going forward again.

And oh, by the way, there is no "natural cycle" of the NBA. You make it seem as if it's as easy as rain/water/vapor. You have to make the decisions and improve your team, and against some pretty tough odds, cause there are 29 other teams trying to do the same thing, and good don't come cheap. You can't just wake up one day and have a contender on your hands.

Two points I should mention:

1) I am NOT a "Fire Petrie, he's a bum" party member. I don't think he is completely to blame for the mess we're in, as I think the Maloofs took too long to realize what was happening and let him do his job (if they even have). But he is to blame, because his name is on this team. Every player that we have, he brought here. Every contract we've given out, he offered. So it's his team. And the team sucks.

2) This team is exciting to watch, the way it's currently comprised. Kevin just came back and won't be stopped. Salmons has surprised everyone. Beno is solid. Brad's back in '03 form, maybe better. And when you compare this team to last year's, even if we finish with an identical record or worse, this is a better team. But we aren't going anywhere. We're not going to contend with what we have, and we don't have much to help us improve. Not without giving up the brightest star on the roster, plus some more talent. And again, Geoff is in charge, isn't he? If he's not, then why are the Maloofs paying him? I could sit in an office and take orders.

So my point is that, while there are some good things that have happened under Geoff's watch, and while we're not the Knicks, we still aren't in a good situation, not talent-wise, not cap-wise. Who's responsible for that?

 

[Superman]

Here's a comparison of Dumars and Petrie's picks over the years. Dumars became executive prior to the 2000-01 season so I'm assuming he made the pick in 2000, but I could be wrong.

Talent evaluation is a scout's job. There's a reason that GMs make more money. They have to do a lot more than make draft picks in order to build a good team.

Am I right?

 

[Superman]

Somewhere along the way he gives Peja that big, big contract....not quite paying dividends yet.

Don't mean to nitpick, but I believe the Pacers signed Peja to that contract. May have been a sign-and-trade...

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

No. He. Is. Not.

1) The draft is not the sole qualifier of whether or not a GM is a good evaluator of talent, as has already been detailed.

2) Dumars, Buford, Pritchard, Bower and Colangelo are all better at evaluating talent. For that matter, despite the fact that they're struggling right now, you could make the case that John Paxon has been better, too. And that's neither here nor there to me, because Petrie may be better than Paxon, but he's not better than the five guys I've already named, and there's no way in the world that he's "easily" top 5.

Yes he is. You can simply take a look at his draft picks and FA signings resume and it is very easily comparable to Buford and Dumars, and is arguably better than Colangelo's, Pritchard's and Bowers.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I really don't know how you can make this claim. Dumars? He's done well with veterans, but he's been seriously spotty with draft picks. How many diamond-in-the-rough kind of guys has he found? Billups and Ben Wallace? No doubt, solid. Prince was good. Okur was good. But how hard was it to see that Rip and Rasheed were good? And throw in Darko, the seriously botched Nazr Mohammad acquisition, and losing Ben Wallace for nothing (not so much about talent spotting, but ok) -- I don't see how this constitutes a great track record.

It's not a question of whether Rip Hamilton was good. The reason why it was a good acquisition is because, at the point in time when the trade went down, Stackhouse was thought to be the superior player. Let's not forget that Stackhouse was coming off a thirty point-per-game season when Dumars traded him for Hamilton.

And don't dog the Mohammed signing; that wasn't a GM error, it was a coaching error. Mohammed has been a solid contributor for every team he's ever played for but Detroit. That's on Flip Saunders, not Joe Dumars.

They're on the downslide since they won their championship and they need to break it up. Instead he reups Billups and assembles a mediocre bench. I just don't see how he's so much better.

Bull**** they're on the downslide. They're the second-best team in the league, behind San Antonio, and have been no lower than the top 5 since 2003.

Bower? The guy who looked at Peja and saw a $10 million man? Look, drafting Paul was a complete no-brainer. Hilton Armstrong is a pretty enh lotto pick. Getting Chandler for nothing? Good. Big free agent acquisition Morris Peterson? Say what?

Belittle the signings if you want, but the Hornets will be tied for the third-best record in the West with a win tonight, and six of their seven best players were signed on his watch. He gets credit for that.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yes he is. You can simply take a look at his draft picks and FA signings resume and it is very easily comparable to Buford and Dumars, and is arguably better than Colangelo's, Pritchard's and Bowers.

You can argue it all you want. You'd be wrong, though.

 

[Kingzrool]

Wow indeed.

How does a legitimate title run five years ago justify the fact that we have less talent than 65% of the NBA.......

You were mentioning 13 years with nothing to show. That is bogus not to mention the title run and the team that GP put together that was clearly better than some championship teams. GP put his team in the position to take the title from one of the best teams ever assembled in the NBA. What more do you ask? Should he have gone out on the court and blocked Hoorory's shot himself? At some point or another the TEAM needs to take the game and they failed.

IMO they failed him way more than he failed them. And sometimes its "thats the way the ball bounces".

Point is, most of the negative Nancies in this thread would not have their current point of view if things happened (or not) that were completely out of GP's control. He did all he could in extremely adverse conditions. Just because other GM's had an easier environment in which to thrive, that does not make them better, Just more successfull.

 

[fnordius]

2) This team was exciting to watch, the way it was comprised before tonight.

Fixed.